Juventus and Porto battled over two legs in their UEFA Champions League octafinal series last week and found themselves completely knotted up at three goals apiece. Each team had won their home leg by the same 2:1 score line and the teams played another 30 minutes of extra time on Juventus’ home field. They each scored once in extra time and despite the aggregate score still level at 4:4, it was the Porto players who celebrated advancement to the quarterfinals, thanks to having scored more away goals, although that extra away goal came after 120 minutes of soccer. Should away goals be the decisive factor when teams have reached extra time?
The away-goals rule makes plenty of sense when used as a tiebreaker in a two-leg series that is all even after 180 minutes. Soccer is inherently a low-scoring game and many coaches will change their tactics to be more conservative when playing away. The incentive of giving a bonus for an away goal has the potential for improving the quality of the soccer on display.
Extending the away-goals rule during extra time is inherently unfair to the team hosting the second leg. Although it is true that they get to play extra time on their home field, the obvious fact remains that the team playing away in the second leg gets 30 more minutes to score an away goal than their opponent did in the first leg.
There are many ways to rectify this situation in a fair, sporting manner.
Make the knockout stage a true knockout
The need to tally away goals can be entirely eliminated if the teams played just one match, rather than two. In many international tournaments, the group stage is followed by the knockout stage, which is a win-or-go-home format. This approach worked tremendously well last August, when the last eight teams in the Champions League and Europa League met at a neutral site to contest the knockout stage. It’s clean, it’s simple, and it’s honest.
All goals count equally in extra time
When two teams remain tied after two legs, extra time really is a third mini-game to decide the series, rather than an extension of the second leg. Teams should be playing under equivalent parameters in extra time.
Play a third match at a neutral site
Adding a third leg to the series is probably impractical for reasons relating to when further knockout matches could be scheduled, added congestion to league schedules, and television concerns. But playing a third match is better than mangling extra time following the second leg.
Go straight to penalty kicks
The elimination of extra time altogether may not have the most sporting merit, but it is certainly fair for both teams. Although the random nature of penalty kicks is not a satisfying way to determine a winner in the series, it is definitive.
I hate PKs to end a series. It’s inherently unfair because a goalkeeper has to be “glued” to the goal line.
I would prefer (as did many of the foreign players in the NASL) that stalemated matches were decided by a shootout, in which the ball was place 35 yards away from the goal, and a player had a few seconds to try and score against a keeper, who could advance when the whistle was blown.
Anyone who saw the Chicago Sting defeat the Cosmos at Wrigley Field would know such a conclusion was not only fairer, but more exciting.
GKs can now move along the goal line and must have at least one foot on the line prior to the ball being kicked, so they have it a little easier than in the old days.
The shootout is more fair than PKs, but there is an increased possibility for either player to get injured when a keeper dives at the feet of a dribbling attacker. That alone might rule out a change to the shootout.